The court case between Apple and Epic is growing louder as their impending hearing grows closer.  And the most recent moves have been made by the Cupertino company.  Apple filed an opposition to Epic's request for a preliminary injunction on Tuesday.

Earlier this month, Epic filed a request for an injunction from Fortnite being removed from the App Store.  That request came after Fortnite's removal, but before Apple's attempt to cut off access to Epic's developer accounts for their games and Unreal Engine. Apple's opposition filing is contesting that injunction request.  The temporary restraining order Epic secured against cutting off their Unreal Engine account is still in place and is not covered by this opposition filing.

Apple's language is slightly less strident than when they filed their countersuit against Epic last week.  But it's still not what one would consider calm.

Epic is a saboteur, not a martyr. It neither needs nor is equitably entitled to the extraordinary relief it seeks from this Court. Indeed, Epic does not even try to explain why it had to breach its contracts to bring this case -- let alone why it had to so fundamentally breach Apple's trust by introducing [direct payments]. And Epic could have avoided any further harm involving both Fortnite and Unreal Engine -- with a simple keystroke.

The first hearing on the case is scheduled for September 28.

Food For Thought

Apple's filing is not without its shortcomings.  First, they have consistently proclaimed that Epic's actions threaten the "privacy and security" of users, though they have declined in any filing to describe even a hypothetical situation where that might happen. Second, there is a strong strand of resentment present as Apple keeps referring to Unreal Engine as a "Trojan horse," and they are not shy about their displeasure at the TRO Epic secured against them.  Third, their mention of other smartphone manufacturers as proof they are not a monopoly ignores a critical difference between iOS and Android, namely that there are no third-party manufacturers of iOS-compatible smartphones or tablets.  Finally, they have failed to acknowledge even in passing Judge Rogers' observation that "serious questions do exist" regarding Apple's policies.  The hearing is likely going to prove interesting.